[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14075-14078]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. CANTOR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the majority 
leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
  On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning-hour debate 
and at 2 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed until 6:30 
p.m.
  This transparency issue has apparently come up again.
  On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning-hour debate 
and at noon for legislative business. On Wednesday and Thursday, the 
House will meet at 10 a.m. for legislative business. On Friday, as is 
usual, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of the suspension bills will be announced by the close of 
business tomorrow.
  In addition, we will consider Representative Betty Sutton's bill, the 
Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009; H.R. 2410, the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2010 and 2011; and 
H.R. 1886, the Pakistan Enduring Assistance and Cooperation Enhancement 
Act of 2009.
  We will also expect to consider a conference report on H.R. 2346, the 
supplemental appropriation bill. I was hoping to consider that 
tomorrow, but discussions between the Senate and the House have not 
been concluded.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that he just referred to 
and announced that we would be considering the war funding supplemental 
conference report next week. I would ask the gentleman: Does he expect 
the very controversial Senate-passed provision providing for the IMF 
money to be included in the conference report?
  I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As you know, the Senate added the IMF funding to the bill. It is a 
loan guaranty. We expect the probability that there will be no out-of-
pocket money for the United States, but there is a loan guaranty to the 
IMF.
  As you know, the G-20 met. Our President, obviously, participated in 
that meeting of the G-20 with 19 other leaders of major nations in the 
world, talking about how we can bring not only each individual country 
out of the recession but, in some cases, depression that some countries 
are in; that there was a need to invest sums in assisting particularly 
smaller, poorer countries to try to recover from the devastation that 
has occurred by, in some cases, the very sharp economic downturn of the 
larger, more prosperous countries.

                              {time}  2015

  The G-20 agreed that they would come up with $500 billion. The United 
States, the wealthiest of the G-20 by far, has a 20 percent share of 
that. The President agreed that the United States would, with the G-20, 
meet its part of the obligation that had been agreed upon. The Senate 
included that. And the answer to the gentleman's question is, I fully 
expect that to be in the supplemental that we'll consider on the floor.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman that the belief on our side 
is the purpose of the war funding bills should be to provide our troops 
with the support they need, not this controversial global bailout 
money. Mr. Speaker, I would say more than that, what we believe is--
currently from the reports is that the bill would eliminate $5 billion 
from the defense spending directly for our troops and provide that $5 
billion credit towards the guarantee that the United States would have 
to provide to the IMF.

[[Page 14076]]

  Mr. Speaker, even further, we understand that in this provision in 
the bill, in essence we would be providing for more money for foreign 
countries in terms of a global bailout than we would be for our own 
troops.
  And the even more troubling part to many of us, Mr. Speaker, is the 
fact that the IMF program allows eligibility for countries like Iran, 
Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma and others. And that these countries, Mr. 
Speaker, are not necessarily in pursuit of policies that help the 
national security of this country. And given the fact that our 
President has said we don't have the money, how is it, Mr. Speaker--and 
I would ask the gentleman--does he think that we ought to be delaying 
the funding of our troops by including the provisions that we've just 
spoken of? And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman's premise is incorrect. None of us on this side think 
we ought to delay this bill. None of us. We believe that the troops 
need the funds, our President has asked for the funds, we're for 
passing those funds. Very frankly, in the Senate, as you know, they 
added a lot of extraneous matters. Some Republicans added extraneous 
matters that, very frankly, we're not happy about on this side of the 
aisle. Large sums of money which have nothing to do with the troops. 
They were added because those Members of the Senate, who happen to be 
very high-ranking Republicans, believe those matters are very 
important.
  Furthermore, let me say to the gentleman we just honored a President 
that you believe was a great President of the United States. We honored 
him yesterday with a statue. I know you'll be interested in some quotes 
from that President:
  ``I have an unbreakable commitment to increased funding for IMF.'' 
Ronald Reagan, September 7, 1983.
  He went on to say in that same speech, ``The IMF is the linchpin of 
the international financial system.''
  He went on to say on July 14, ``The IMF has been a cornerstone of 
U.S. foreign economic policy under Republican and Democratic 
administrations for nearly 40 years.'' That was, of course, in 1983.
  I suggest to the gentleman it has continued for the 26 years after 
that.
  And it remains, he said, a cornerstone of the foreign economic policy 
of this administration.
  Another President on September 25, 1990, said this: George Bush, 
President of the United States, ``The IMF and World Bank, given their 
central role in the world economy, are key to helping all of us through 
this situation by providing a combination of policy advice and 
financial assistance.'' September 25, 1990,
  He went on to say, ``As we seek to extend and expand growth in the 
world economy, the debt problems faced by developing countries are 
central to the agenda of the IMF. The international community's 
strengthened approach to these problems has truly provided new hope for 
debtor nations.''
  I would suggest to you, also, that 11 of the Members--which is to say 
approximately a little over 25 percent of the votes, Republican votes 
in the United States Senate--supported this legislation in this bill. 
So it came to us in a bipartisan fashion from the United States Senate.
  Our President has indicated that the United States of America will in 
fact participate with the other 19 leading industrial nations of this 
world in trying to lift out of the mire of economic distress some 
countries whose distress will impact our recovery as well.
  That is why I say to my friend no one, no one, no one wants to delay 
this bill. I would hope that we have the 368 votes that voted for this 
bill the first time it passed intact when it comes and be consistent 
with the principles enunciated by Ronald Reagan and George Bush in the 
1990s.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  And first of all, there is obviously a delay in this bill. We were 
expecting to see the bill and the war supplemental for our troops to 
come through tomorrow, and I would ask the gentleman, number one, does 
he know the amount of support given to the IMF back when Ronald Reagan 
made those quotes? That's number one.
  And is it appropriate in a war-spending bill for the taxpayers of 
this country to be guaranteeing $108 billion dollars to the IMF when 
we're only providing our troops $80-some billion? So that's more than 
we're providing our troops for a global bailout. And that is the first 
line of questioning, Mr. Speaker.
  Secondly, does he expect to produce more than the 200 votes that the 
gentleman's side produced on the first go-round on this supplemental 
bill? Because if not, then he would need to have some support from this 
side of the aisle. And Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, the 
New York Times has pointed out May 27, Hezbollah, the Shiite militant 
group, has talked with the IMF and the European Union about continued 
financial support.
  So is he aware that this money that we are affording the IMF to 
extend to countries who are in need would include countries where 
Hezbollah would have some impact on the disbursal of those funds?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The last time Iran got money from the United States of America was 
1984. You recall who was President of the United States in 1984, I'm 
sure. That was the last time Iran got money from the United States--
excuse me, from the IMF.
  With respect to your second observation, the gentleman knows how the 
IMF works. The gentleman knows the United States is involved, as are 
the other countries, in overseeing the distribution of IMF funds. There 
is no intention--and there will be no action, certainly, that the 
United States would support--to give any assistance.
  I don't know whether they've talked to the IMF or not. The gentleman 
may have more information than I do.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  I will tell the gentleman, New York Times, May 27, 2009, pointed out 
Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group involved in Lebanon and its 
government, had talks with the IMF to discuss the possibility of the 
extension of credit. And are we not, I would ask the gentleman, 
affording the IMF the ability to extend credit to groups such as that, 
in countries such as that, as well as the potential for countries to 
access the credit, including Iran, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Burma, et 
cetera?
  We are very, very concerned. There is a real possibility that some of 
the world's worst regimes will have access to additional resources that 
will be provided to the IMF, and is he not concerned about that?
  And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Of course. We're all concerned about the fact that any 
money would go to those regimes. The fact of the matter is the IMF 
could have given to very bad regimes during the Reagan administration 
or the Bush administration. The reason the Reagan administration and 
the first Bush administration--and I might say, although I don't have a 
quote from the second Bush administration, the second Bush 
administration, as well, was a supporter of the IMF as the gentleman, 
perhaps, knows.
  The fact of the matter is the United States will play a very 
significant role in the decisionmaking of the IMF because we're a very 
significant contributor. It is a red herring, from my perspective, to 
raise the fact that money could go somewhere. Of course money could go 
somewhere.
  Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman is going to reclaim his time--the 
gentleman asked me a question.
  Any money that we appropriate could go any place. It could go to a 
bad place. We don't want it to go to a bad place. And I don't think any 
of the 19 other nations want it to go to Hezbollah or other 
organizations that might be negative in the use of those funds as far 
as we're concerned.
  What we do want, however--and that's what Ronald Reagan was talking 
about, that's what George Bush was talking about, and that's what 
President Obama is talking about--we do want to see the international 
economy

[[Page 14077]]

rebound as well because it impacts on us as we impact very severely on 
it. That is why the G-20 made this determination.
  I yield back.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I just say to Mr. Speaker, he points out the difficulty that the U.S. 
taxpayers will have in holding accountable this Congress and the IMF 
for the direction of that spending. And given the unprecedented 
economic situation this country and its taxpayers are facing, it is a 
belief on our side of the aisle that we ought not be extending the 
ability to the IMF to extend $108 billion when the primary purpose of 
this particular piece of legislation is to provide support for our 
troops. And let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the 
gentleman.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would also say to the gentleman that today, the 
Speaker of the House acknowledged that she is continuing to receive 
national intelligence briefings from the CIA. Now, Mr. Speaker, as the 
gentleman knows, the Speaker has made serious allegations about the 
CIA's truthfulness to Congress in the briefings. As the gentleman also 
knows, the Speaker of the House is one of only four Members of this 
body who receives the highest level of briefings from the CIA in 
accordance with the practices of this body in our oversight capacities. 
These briefings, Mr. Speaker, are an essential part of the House's 
oversight responsibility of the Nation's intelligence, and in fact, our 
national security.
  So I ask the gentleman that, in accordance with the custom of this 
House, shouldn't the House temporarily designate a replacement for the 
Speaker in these briefings to maintain the integrity of our oversight? 
And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Absolutely not. Nobody has questioned the Speaker's 
integrity.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman. If the 
Speaker has alleged that there is untruthfulness, if there is a lack of 
candor on the part of those giving the briefings, isn't it somehow 
compromising in those briefings the national security of our country? 
And I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. Absolutely not. There is no belief, I think, of anybody in 
this House, I hope--and I certainly do not believe that in any way the 
Speaker has ever, nor would she ever compromise in any way the security 
of our country, the security of our troops, and the security of our 
people, period.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman and say, 
what has changed? Because the Speaker has made very serious allegations 
about the veracity of the briefings that are given by the CIA, and if 
we are to believe that she is correct, shouldn't we be either having an 
investigation of those allegations, or is it that she has now changed 
her mind and believes that the briefings are worthwhile because we can 
count on the veracity of the information given in those briefings? And 
I yield.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must say, I really have difficulty following the gentleman's 
reasoning, with all due respect. The fact of the matter is that we have 
oversight. I see Mr. Hoekstra on the floor. I don't know that Mr. Reyes 
is on the floor. But we have a mechanism for oversight of the CIA and 
of our intelligence units. My presumption is that intelligence 
oversight is, in fact, working. I certainly hope it's working. My 
expectation and belief is that it is working. The fact of the matter is 
that a number of people on both sides of the aisle have raised 
questions from time to time with respect to the information they have 
received. Vice President Cheney on television just the other day made 
some allegations with respect to information that he had received. The 
fact of the matter is that it seems to me that the gentleman somehow 
interprets the fact that somebody in an intelligence agency may have 
given wrong information--may have--that somehow the receiver of the 
information is the guilty party. I cannot follow that reasoning, I tell 
my friend from Virginia.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman again, hasn't the Speaker of this 
House--not just any Member, but the Speaker of the House, second in 
line to the President, the constitutional officer presiding in this 
House--hasn't she indicated her belief and her position that there has 
been a pattern of misleading information given to this body by the CIA? 
And if that is the case, I would ask the gentleman, what value is it 
for the Speaker then to engage in these briefings if she cannot trust 
the veracity of the information?
  Mr. HOYER. The gentleman's reasoning continues to somewhat confound 
me. The fact of the matter is, I am hopeful that the intelligence 
agencies are, in fact, giving accurate assessments of what they believe 
to be the situation as it relates to America's national security 
interests to the Speaker and to any others that they might brief, 
including myself from time to time. I expect that to be the case. I 
think the Speaker expects it to be the case. I'm sure that every other 
person being briefed expects it to be the case. I certainly hope that 
it is the case. But whether it is the case or not, the gentleman's 
logic, therefore, that the Speaker shouldn't listen I don't follow.
  Mr. CANTOR. I reclaim my time to try and clarify my logic, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I think the gentleman and I both agree that we have heard the Speaker 
indicate her position that she is not being told the truth. And if she 
continues to have the briefings, has something changed? Has something 
been restored to the process that there is integrity in these 
briefings? And if so, does that mean that the Speaker of the House has 
retracted her position that somehow we've been misled by the CIA?
  I would yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The gentleman continues to state his position. I continue to tell him 
that his reasoning confounds me; and, therefore, I find it not 
worthwhile to repeat it for a fourth time.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman for his patience and would say, 
again, that we have still not given the American people the 
transparency on this issue that they deserve. The Speaker of this House 
has made allegations in a very serious way about our intelligence 
community. This House is given the oversight responsibility for our 
Nation's intelligence structure and operation. We all are here sworn to 
uphold our duty in that respect and the paramount duty of this body, to 
ensure this Nation's security. It is our belief that we should get to 
the bottom of this. We should have some sense of an investigation that 
can ensue to understand why the Speaker made such allegations. That is 
our position, Mr. Speaker. And if the gentleman doesn't agree that 
there needs to be something to shed some light on this on behalf of the 
people, then I guess we agree to disagree.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield.
  Mr. HOYER. I will repeat, we have a mechanism to do exactly what the 
gentleman suggests, finding out whether the truth has been told with 
respect to the briefings. Obviously there are differences of opinion. 
The gentleman knows that Senator Graham, a former chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee, says that he was not briefed on the 
issues in question. He is a former governor of Florida, a respected 
Member of the United States Senate, mentioned for the presidency of the 
United States, a gentleman for whom I have great respect, as I have 
great respect for the Speaker. There is a mechanism that is in place, 
that is available; and I would certainly hope, very frankly, that the 
committee is, in fact, pursuing the facts as they perceive them to be 
necessary to be disclosed.
  So there is a mechanism in place. I hope that mechanism is being 
pursued. But it does not relate to the Speaker. The gentleman wants to 
focus on the Speaker, in my opinion, for partisan reasons.
  Mr. CANTOR. I reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page 14078]]

  Again, the gentleman and I can have a discussion here without such 
allegations being made on the floor. The position that we have taken is 
in response to direct statements made by the Speaker. There is no 
partisan accusation here. This is in response to direct statements made 
by the Speaker. We have a situation that we need some type of 
independent third party to intervene here. If there is ever an 
analogous situation in a court of law when one party accuses another of 
not being truthful, there must be some way, some independent mechanism 
to determine whether and what was the truth. This is my question again, 
and the gentleman may continue to be confounded.
  My question again is, what has changed? If the Speaker doubts the 
veracity of the information she receives from the CIA but continues to 
receive that information, how is it that that process doesn't harm the 
national security of this country?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I continue to be confounded. I presume and hope, and the 
Speaker hopes, I'm sure, and everybody who receives information from 
the intelligence community believes and hopes that it is accurate and 
is as good an assessment and as honest an assessment as can be given. 
Everyone hopes that. Mr. Hoekstra, who is on the floor, hopes that. Mr. 
Reyes, who is the chairman of the committee, hopes that. I hope it when 
I am briefed. I am sure you do as well when you are briefed. But if 
it's not, I don't hold myself culpable, you culpable, Mr. Hoekstra 
culpable or Mr. Reyes culpable.
  So I continue to be confused that your focus is on the Speaker, not 
on the quality of the information.
  Mr. CANTOR. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. HOYER. Every time you don't like my answer, frankly, Mr. Cantor, 
you reclaim your time. I regret that.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to the gentleman. I am 
focusing on the Speaker because that's where the statements came from.
  Mr. HOYER. No. The statements came from the CIA, apparently.
  Mr. CANTOR. The statements came from the Speaker that she believes 
she has been misled, and this Congress has been misled. And she said 
again today that she is continuing the process of being briefed. What 
has changed? I would ask the gentleman, what has changed in the 
Speaker's mind that she continues to receive briefings when she alleges 
mistruths?
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANTOR. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me pose to the 
gentleman a question:
  The CIA briefs you. You believe the information that you have 
received is inaccurate. But on your premise if you say I believe it is 
inaccurate, the solution you suggest is that you no longer get briefed. 
That is what confounds me. That is what I think is perverse reasoning 
and with which I do not agree. That is my answer. I think this 
discussion is not bearing fruit.
  Mr. CANTOR. Again, Mr. Speaker, I would respond by saying that the 
American people deserve some transparency. We deserve to get to the 
bottom of the very serious allegations that have been made about the 
CIA and their conduct in front of this body.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I yield back my time.

                          ____________________